User talk:After Midnight/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

RoHS image

Hello,

Can you please explain why you deleted the solder image from the RoHS article? This image keeps getting taking down despite efforts to explain why it meets the fair use guidelines. Did you get a chance to read the image page? I'd be happy to add more information if you'll put the image back. It's a valuable addition. Thanks. Prosecreator 19:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming you are referring to Image:pht-solder-joint.jpg? It contained no license tag, and was thus deleted per WP:CSD#I4. I will restore it for 1 week, but I will expect for you to tag it properly and add any necessary rationales during that time, or it will be re-deleted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight, you might want to read my comments on deletionists on my user page Aki Korhonen. It is deletions like this that greatly reduce the motivation to contribute to wikipedia. As I've said in several other conversations before, those with real information rarely are motivated to contribute the same information twice. You delete it once, and you might never get it back, unless it's commercially or ideologically motivated content, or someone really believes in that topic. Please think about that every time you delete anything. Aki Korhonen 02:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aki, Can you clarify why you chose to leave me this message? An image was tagged for violation of the copyright policy. That image was then deleted 1 week later, per policy, when it was not remediated. There is no judgment here regarding whether the image is valuable or not. The only judgment is if the image is tagged properly so that copyright laws are not violated. This is not an issue of deletionism. Perhaps instead of writing essays, you might chose to read the image policies of the site and follow them. They really are quite easy, and will keep valid images from being deleted. Just put a copyright tag on the image and if it is non-free add a usage rationale. If you don't know how to do this, ask for help. If you think that what I am suggesting is silly, then you need to examine why you are expecting this project to violate the law on your behalf. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed to not have understood the rationale under which you operated. I also don't believe I implied any of the things that you seem to attribute to me. However, it is silly that you are claiming a violation of copyright law when the image is being used under the fair use doctrine. It would be a stretch for a copyright holder in any jurisdiction (particularly that of the US, which is perhaps the most strict when it comes to rights such as these) to claim an actionable violation under these circumstances. This is especially the case since the description stated for some time prior to your deletion "It is an image of solder joint reliability called AlphaSTAR from Cookson Electronics" (emp. added) and also contained a link to the original location, hence providing more than sufficient attribution, but perhaps not in the format that you liked.

I ask that you read my user page to see how I define deletionism. One way to avoid it is to start looking for reasons to keep items, instead of reasons to delete them. Another is to fix obvious issues, instead of deleting them, especially when you have everything you need to apply a fix. Aki Korhonen 15:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I just realized that I should have added that the above is not to say that I don't appreciate those who volunteer their time to keep wikipedia going. For that part, thanks. Aki Korhonen 15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see that you have now placed a rationale on the image, but I can't imagine how you could have expected me to be able to do that. I do not have that information to be able to describe the rationale as you did. Just so you know, images that I delete have had notifications made that they require remediation, and have been given a full week to allow that to occur. This amount of time should be sufficient to fix anything. Whenever someone asks for me to restore something for them, I do so, and help them figure out how to make the fixes as well, when I can. Keep in mind that while some people upload images in good faith, and want to contribute to the project, many other people dump many copyrighted images here and do not care if they are in violation or should actually be here or not. I try to work with people as best I can to help, but I just do not have the knowledge to fix most of their images for them. I think that when I give them a warning that their image may be deleted, that is helpful to them, because it gives them time to fix it, while at the same time, providing a deadline, so that issues do not remain indefinitely. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[unindent for readability]

I appreciate the way in which you have handled this matter. However, I was trying to assist in drawing a distinction between the behavior that you are describing, and the behavior that prosecreator was -- presumably inadvertently -- engaging in.

I have run into many examples of individuals loading content to wikipedia for which at best a shaky fair use justification exists. However, it should be easy to separate such content from the RoHS image that prosecreator uploaded, which is obviously a highly technical image with an explanatory text providing most of the key information you were seeking.

In addition, while I realize that the following is not wikipedia policy (though it in my opinion should), for highly technical articles there should be no 1 week period for responding to any demand of any sort. The problem that highly technical articles have is the narrow field of experts that are in a position to contribute, or may have contributed. Many such experts simply don't have the time to check wikipedia often enough. I can't offer guidance as to what period would be more suitable, but I can say with certainty that 1 week is clearly insufficient.

Aki Korhonen 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your perspective. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

It would have been nice, instead of deleting "Image:Couch2.jpg" and then striking it off my discussion page, if you would have used your time to alert me that a copyright status was needed on the image. the_undertow ^talk 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nicer if you had paid attention when User:ImageTaggingBot tagged it for deletion. It would have been nicer still if the bot had put a notice on your talk page when it did the tagging as it advertises itself to do. I would expect a fellow admin to know how this stuff works, but, hey, if you want to put it all on me, whatever.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had the time to comment it out from my talk page, you certainly had the time to let me know of the status. I don't often go into the images I upload to check and see if they were tagged for deletion. Improving the project entails the little nuances like leaving notes to editors when things need to be fixed. If an image lacks copyright information, and is used in a page, why not ask the editor to provide it? I would have, just like I don't delete everything tagged 'speedy' nor take orders from a bot. But I didn't properly license the upload, so I have no problem with taking responsibility. the_undertow ^talk 08:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take the time to comment it out. Twinkle did that for me automatically. Carnildo's bot is usually very reliable, so I don't understand why it did not provide you the 7 day warning to correct the image. If you would like for me to ask him about the bot coding I would be happy to do that. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the bot leaves something to be desired on the subject of notifications. Image:Cranbrook_School_Archer.png was speedily deleted without any notification on the page (pages?) that link to it, e.g., Cranbrook Schools. Someone might have well supplied a fair use rationale (the image quite possibly being the official logo of the school in question) had they known it was tagged for deletion. Now however the image is gone and the work simply multiplied for anyone who might wish to restore it. JohnInDC (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Shucks, well, I've just restored it for you now, so you've got another week to get that rationale posted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh! I said "someone", not me! (Thanks.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - maybe you can at least figure out who to notify and let them remediate it? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I can fix it. The "restoration" only revived the image, however - I find I can't edit the original image page to add a fair use rationale and remove the deletion tag. Is there something else that needs to be done to make the image page editable, or does it have to be recreated from scratch? JohnInDC (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a deletion tag, a Non-free logo tag, a category and a bit of text. Perhaps you just need to CTRL-F5 on your browser? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have it sorted. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wk1.jpg

Thanks for letting me know on 27/11/07 about the image being up for deletion if it's not properly tagged. I only picked up on the message today. I've now put a message on the media copyright questions page, as I'm stumped about how to tag it now.

The photographer's not bothered about copyright status as long as she's credited. I did that on the image page, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Can you advise, please? abafied 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest that you place {{Non-free use rationale}} on the image description page and fill out the fields according to the instructions that you may find at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks. I'll try it. abafied 04:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mttobyprofile.jpg

I must have selected the wrong liscense for this photo. I took the photo, so I own the rights to it. I've reuploaded using hopefully the proper lisense. Jrclark 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the history. It looks like you didn't put any license on it the first time, but it looks just fine now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I suspected I may have forgotten to tag it. Jrclark 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do you know why image "1985 cropped.jpg" was deleted? I received no reason or notice on my talk page. Thanks for your help. Flap Jackson 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted for lack of an image copyright tag. As I can see that you were not notified, I will restore the image for another week to allow you time to get it fixed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought I had it copyrighted. Flap Jackson 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Grizzly Picture

I was wondering why the picture 'smokeless_003' was removed for the second time from the Grizzly tobacco page. After a bot removed it the first time, I cited it, or at least i thought i did. I'm kind of new to this, so if im doing something wrong, please explain. Thanks. DJ SlimJim 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that I deleted Image:Smokeless 003.jpg per WP:CSD#I4. Looking in the deleted version history, I can see that you put a comment in the edit summary that the image came from Source: http://www.smokersoutletonline.com/images/smokeless%20003.jpg , but it appears that you didn't actually place an image tag on it or reference the source in the image text. I'll restore the image for you and extend the deletion date on it out a week to give you some time to fix it. You will need to tag it with a non-free image tag, such as found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. You will also need to include a usage rationale. I would suggest that you consider using the template you will find at {{Non-free use rationale}}. Of course, once this is done, you will want to add the image back to the article. Hope this helps. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Actually, I think I might borrow a digital camera and take my own pictures, just to avoid this happening again. Thanks for the info though. DJ SlimJim 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

*Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey, saw you on the vandalism IRC channel! Just thought I'd drop by... :) *Cremepuff222* 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OH? How does that work? I came online to find you, but you were not there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

I see that you deleted Image:Gardening stamp.jpg but it seems you are not aware that US stamp images issued before 1978 are in the public domain (check this out), and as this was a 1958 stamp image your deletion was not proper. Mind you neither was using a fair use tag as it seems to have had which is maybe why you deleted it. Perhaps you would revert you deletion without it being necessary to go to WP:DRV. ww2censor (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There was actually a note there that only the image of the stamp was PD, but that the cachet was copyrighted by the artist. As a result, the image in total would still be non-free and did require a rationale per WP:CSD#I6. I would not require this to go to DRV to be restored, but I also won't restore it unless you promise to put the rationale there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not know about there being a cachet and that was what was being considered as I don't think I ever saw or noticed the image specifically. The cachet copyright issue also depends on who designed it. If it was designed by the post office then it too would come under the PD as the stamp, but I don't know that without seeing the image. Regarding doing a fair-use rationale, I could do that, but it would really depend on whether I thought the deleted image enhances the article or if a different image would be better. If I can see the image, even temporarily, I could make an informed choice and decision. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see it, thanks. i have no idea who issued that FDC, besides which, the image is not very high quality and I am sure we can find better to substitute. Thanks for letting me see it, but we are probably better off without it and any of the copyright issues with the cachet. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Thank you for your help. That one user slapped the "no rationale" tag on a bunch of photos I had uploaded, calling me a "serial copyright violator" and such stuff as that. He tagged so many that I've only done a few of them, figuring it was a hopeless cause. Maybe it's not hopeless. I wonder if you'd be willing to help me do the fair use claims better? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand your position. But let me also say that I very much respect that other user and I do agree with them that your rationales are probably insufficient. What I do disagree with them about is that they are not subject to the I6 criteria. I think that they are probably better served by "non-free use disputed" or "IFD" in their current condition. I'm not removing their tags because I specifically believe that the images should be kept, but rather because I don't feel that they qualify for deletion without further discussion. Unfortunately, I don't think that I am the right person to write the claims. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't the vaguest idea what a 16 is. So we're back to square one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not a number 16 it is an I6 (letter I, number 6). For reference, please see WP:CSD#I6. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, that user is bound and determined to delete them, so nothing I do is going to make any difference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another user and I have been trying to add fair use rationales to these, so that user is now hurriedly getting them deleted in order to stymie our efforts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, if your rationales are valid you should be fine. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:87009.jpg e.a

I saw you restored these two images. They were already listed on pui a while ago. The decision then was to keep but use both a fair use tag and a free content tag. Later they have been tagged as lacking a fair use rationale. Since it is not really necessary to list them again on PUI, I deleted the images for lacking a ratonale. Which I guess I should have explained to you earlier. Garion96 (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I didn't know the history of that and I didn't see anything in the links. Please feel free to re-delete them. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

• See this

I started listing them all at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 7, but doing it manually is taking forever. Any chance you have a way to speed things up? : ) - jc37 08:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well.... AMBot could do a group nom, but I think that would be less than helpful. These probably need to be done individually, but if you use WP:TW, you can probably make it go a bit easier. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the tools/toys work for me in my current situation. So I tend to either do everything "by hand" or hope that help is possible. While at the same time (hopefully) not dumping a manual task that I could be doing myself upon someone else : )

Thanks anyway : ) - jc37 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

Can you tell me why you reverted [1]? While there might certainly be an argument to be made for keeping the image under the fair use policy, "for historical value" is not a fair use rationale, right? I'm just a bit perplexed as to what's going on here. :-) Dmcdevit•t 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When I evaluate WP:CSD#I6 deletions, I tend to be quite conservative. I believe that I6 applies only when there is "no use rationale whatsoever", as quoted in the policy. Therefore, if the user claims fair use, even if that claim is not correct, I will not delete the image. In these cases, I feel that it is better to pursue deletion via WP:CSD#I7 (for invalid claims) or via CAT:DFUI (non-free use disputed) or even WP:IFD. As I told a user a couple days ago (which you can see above) I'm not removing the tags because I specifically believe that the images should be kept, but rather because I don't feel that they qualify for deletion without further discussion. I hope that this clears up how I do these. If you feel that I am out of touch with consensus, policy, or reality, please let me know and I may be open to changing my standards. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As for consensus, I will admit ignorance, but for policy, the WP:CSD#I6 you linked to does not include the wording "no use rationale whatsoever," which is one thing that threw me off when I went looking to see if I was totally off-base. Reality—now this was my biggest concern, I guess. :-) I asked some other admins casually, and all seemed to think that the reversions were overall counterproductive and overly concerned with the letter of policy. I6 and I7 both give an image the same 7-day period for review, both templates ask for a proper rationale and link to the guideline. To me, an image that says "for historical value" may have an attempted rationale, but if it doesn't rationalize anything, it has no rationale. The distinction is not important. I guess what irked me was to have spent the time tagging something like a hundred images with no (or "poor," if you prefer) rationales for fair use, and then to have all of them reverted in the space of 4 minutes a week later for using the wrong template. It would have been much nicer to 1) have been simply told before having a hundred tags reverted, so it could be fixed, or 2) just deal with the images as usual, considering there is no substantive difference between the process they received and the one they would have received with an I7 template and now we have a bunch of still incorrect fair use images put back into the general pool of images without scrutiny. Dmcdevit•t 11:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that text is located here: Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Speedy_deletion. As I read it, these images do not qualify for speedy deletion. I really think that they qualify better as CAT:DFUI. Please understand that I am not intending to waste your time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense to me semantically. "for historical value" in no way resembles the guidelines at WP:FURG (guidelines for what makes a fair use rationale, not just what makes a good one, or something) and is not a fair use rationale. More importantly here, what we have is a bunch of images tagged as having insufficient rationales, that languished for the requisite week, and then got reverted for using the wrong tag, even though the difference between the tags is between "no rationale" and "poor rationale" (such that anyone that was going to fix the poor rationale would have fixed it when tagged as no rationale), and are now still neither fixed nor tagged as a result. I don't see that as a helpful interpretation of the policy. Dmcdevit•t 20:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that I understand your frustration. I am trying to impartially balance between the 2 sides of this argument. You still have the opportunity to pursue deletion in spite of my declination to delete. Think about this also, however from the side of the person who wants to keep the image. For them it looks like you are requesting that their image be deleted for having no rationale, but the image actually does have a rationale. So they are confused because you are not approaching them to explain what you feel is wrong, you are just tagging a bunch of images. Also, I notice that you do not seem to be doing anything other than tagging the images. It may be more helpful if you were to notify the uploaders and also use the template on the article page to indicate that the image is subject to deletion. It is possible that the images are not being remediated because no one other than you knows that they were tagged. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding image deletions

Hi After Midnight. I was just looking through Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 2 December 2007 and noticed that you have just deleted Image:BIMSTEClogo.jpg, but the tag on the images said it was not due to be deleted until after Sunday, 9 December. By my reckoning, the image was not due to be deleted for another 12 hours. Bláthnaid 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the images in that category may be deleted after that have been tagged for 7 full days. As that image was tagged before mid-day on the 2nd, it was eligible for deletion at mid-day on the 9th. Regardless, if you are intending to put a valid rationale on it now, I will restore it for you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand where you are coming from now. I generally just go by the date the image was tagged, rather than the precise time the image was tagged. I guess you like to be punctual :) If you could restore that image, I will add the rationale. Bláthnaid 12:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And fixed. Thanks again. Bláthnaid 12:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Campus Antiwar Network

Why did you remove my photograph from the nov2003 conference? I had done EVERYTHING that the page specified, including providing the copyright information from the original photographer. I even emailed the permissions@wikimedia email address on the page with a forwarded copy of the permissions letter. I literally performed every action needed for that photo to be just fine. I request that you reverse this change and reupload the file, since you are the cause of this problem.

Next time, I'll just ignore all this bureaucratic junk and just tag the photos as copyright free to avoid this hassle so you don't send your automated robots after me. This is a joke. Admiralthrawn 1 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: List of Prostitution related jargon page

Hi After Midnight

I noticed that the page "List of prostitution-related jargon" was removed on Oct 27. While the usefulness of that page might be limited to a narrow audience..lol...it was useful to several bulletin board communities around the net as a reference point for newbies. Any chance that it could be reinstated?

Thanks!!!

The_Paladin —Preceding unsigned comment added by The paladin houston (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Since it was a deleted PROD I have restored it and listed it at AFD where it can receive a more thorough discussion regarding whether it should exist here or not. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted logo image

Hi. I noticed (belatedly) your edit here and thought I would comment on it. By commenting out this image which was being used in the title field, it meant that the field was displaying as blank, which looks a little weird. As the original creator of the logo image, I was a little miffed that I was never informed of its proposed deletion; I had understood that policy recommended informing the creator of an image of its deletion as a courtesy. I have undeleted the image (with a rationale) and restored it to the article meantime. Now, there is a legitimate argument that using logo images like this in this field is suboptimal; I have raised the matter here recently (before I became aware of this image's deletion), and you may wish to contribute. I hope this doesn't come across as in any way snippy by the way; I understand and support the non-free image use policy; there just seem to have been some crossed wires on this occasion. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It seems like the person who tagged the image for deletion may not have notified you as they should have. When it remained tagged for 7 days without being repaired, I deleted it. If you have repaired it, I have no issue with it being restored. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging request

Would you please tag all the members of category:Wikipedians by software (excluding IRC, and the "Wikipedians by" cats), and Category:Wikipedians by media player, and its subcats. Thank you. - jc37 14:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am currently separated from AMbot, but we will be back together within the next couple days. I'll get it taken care of for you then. By the way, this is also why I've not been closing UCFDs the last several days, but I'll get back on them at the same time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. When you do, would you also then please move them to the appropriate day, so that the tags are up at least 5 days? - jc37 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		Thanks for your work on those thankless image cleanup tasks! For that, you get a shiny new medal made out of all-recycled photons. Keep up the good work! – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category: Slightly confused at the moment -- unsure how to act...

I think it says to just post here if you have a problem... Well, the Toad Patrol wiki had all the photos deleted concerning not tagging it properly but I was creditting each picture as being direct out-takes from the show. Did I do something wrong? Because I wouldn't know how to properly credit it than since the whole article is already creditting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinker Jet (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 December 2007

Hello. It appears that these images were deleted per WP:CSD#I4. Looking in the deleted version history, I can see that you put a comment regarding what the images were, but it appears that you didn't actually place an image tag on them or reference the source in the image text. Images such as screenshots must be tagged with a non-free image tag, such as found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. You will also need to include a usage rationale. I would suggest that you consider using the template you will find at {{Non-free use rationale}}. Of course, once this is done, you can add the images back to the article. Hope this helps. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wikipedian League of Old Codgers

No, I wasn't aware until just a moment ago when I saw the first reply. Although I'd like to see it deleted, I can wait a while to re-nom, so I'll withdraw. VegaDark (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV

I haven't submitted it yet, because the correct procedure is to discuss it with the closing admin first, but I intend to take Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Rouge admins to DRV. There is a userbox available (which is used by 15 of the 81 people in the category), and through either the userbox, a snippet of text on their userpage, or a list (if the category was to be listified) they can indicate their rouge-ness. Any feedback before I kick this off? I'll give it a couple of hours... Horologium (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

15 of 81 just isn't enough to be a viable substitute. I think it is inappropriate to ask these users to remake their userpages for such a long-standing categorization. If the userbox can be advertised in such a way that it were used more, or if the users were given a more extended warning and migration period, I would feel differently. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Public domain license category

Greetings, After Midnight. I'm having trouble understanding your position in closing this debate. It appears to me that there was consensus to rename, but concern that it could lead to problemn (since multiple, contradictory templates add a single category). It seems to me that it would be better to have categories like Category:Wikipedians who license all text contributions into the public domain, Category:Wikipedians who license all minor text contributions into the public domain, etc., and templates that correctly match the text of these. Do you agree? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the creation of new, unambiguous categories. I indicated this in my earlier close, but I will modify this one to indicate the same. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

CAT:AOTR

Hi. Please see the CAT:AOTR DRV ... this DRV has speedy closed with result Overturn. I think you acted hastily in carrying out the result, it was obvious it was going to go to DRV, but if you undo the changes, no harm done. Please have your bot undo all the category removals that it did and please notify anyone else that helped you out in doing this work to give you a hand in undoing it. Since my own page is protected I have went ahead and reverted your own change. There may be other admins with protected pages you need to do that for, I could not say. Thanks. And thanks for your assistance in general. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious about when things go to DRV and nothing is obvious about how they are going to be closed until they start (and sometimes that is even in question until the very end). Many categories go to DRV and most decisions are upheld, so there is no harm in doing the bot run. At any rate, the changes are fairly easy to undo and won't take very long, once I get started on it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that there aren't obvious overturns, although maybe it wasn't obvious to you. It lasted what, 3 hours? Thanks for starting the work. It's not quite correct yet, we should be at either 136 or 137 (and it's up to you, not me, to know which, in my view... your contrib history and the bots should tell I would guess) and we still have a few missing stragglers. Appreciate the work. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been done for a while. Is there some reason that you are still harassing me about it? And are you actually arguing with me about whether or not you are a better predictor than I am of how a DRV will end before it even starts? I have better things to do than argue about that. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems like harassment, that's not at all my intent. I just want to see the category restored properly and I think it's still off by one or two. See Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/List_of_administrators (the list that was constructed from the category) which has 136 entries. The category has 134. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is off by 2 because 2 admins have voluntarily removed themselves from the category since the list was created. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That would certainly explain it, do you know which two? Thanks again for your work. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Darthgriz98 and User:KieferSkunk. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

magyarcsanad.gif

Excuse me, but could you undelete my material? As I indicated in the tag, it was taken by me. As I remember, I directly stressed in the tag that it was self-made. I am sorry for that maybe I missed the correct categorization. I am going to supplement it if you undelete the material. Thank you.

User:Aranyhold 16:65, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored Image:Magyarcsanád .gif and given it another week for you to fix it. It looks like there is no current tag on the image, so you will want to make sure you select whatever is appropriate from either Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses or Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

User:Brian0324 and Anietor continue to rollback a new paragraph I added in the article Christianity in China, and by contrast they rollback their POV. I've tagged them in their talk page, but please help me! --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time to police a dispute like this right now. If this is a content dispute, please try the article talk page. If this is a 3RR violation, please see WP:AN3. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're deleting early now

See [2]. This, and all the images in the "13th" category, shouldn't have been deleted until tomorrow, no? Not that it's a big deal. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Actually, It is 7 full days from when that image was tagged for deletion. So if you are one of the admins who has a script that clears a whole category at once, then you need to wait until the day is over to be safe. But if you are one of the admins who checks each image and deletes it individually, like I do, then you can use recent changes of the category to make sure that you don't go early. In that instance the image was tagged at 1804 UTC and deleted at 1840 UTC 7 days later. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

logo

The image TSFC_Logo.png that you just deleted used a template from the Canadian University Press Logo, which hasn't been removed. I'm at the charity right now attempting to increase its online presence. Please let me know what about the CUP was acceptable and what wasn't acceptable about the TSFC logo. Bear in mind donations are being wasted by the time spent dealing with unnecessary deletions. User: Mt Valley

The image that I deleted had no non-free usage rationale, which you seem to have since fixed when you downloaded a new version. You should bear in mind, that I am more concerned with the integrity of the encyclopedia than I am with your expenses. You should also bear in mind that your edits should be scrutinized for WP:POV bias as we need to ensure that articles contain independently verifiable information, not just the varnished opinions of an organizations employees. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada

I just saw the COI tag you added there. I've been watching that article since it was created, and although the TSFC is clearly editing it, so far, there have been no issues. I've kept 'em honest. Do you think the tag is really needed, considering that I'm watching it very closely? (I wrote the featured article Tourette syndrome.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you are doing that. Maybe you would feel better if the COI tag were on the talk page rather than on the article? Obviously, I hope that you will stay here forever, but this way the tag would still be there in case you leave the project, while still being less intrusive than the top of the article itself. If you agree, feel free to move the tag. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of keeping the tag somewhere because one factor of that article has always troubled me: no matter how often I offer to help the editors, they have never corresponded or responded to my queries. TSFC is tricky: definitely notable as the second best Tourette Syndrome Association in the world, but rarely mentioned in the literature because the TSA-USA dominates. So, when I asked them to establish notability, it was tricky (I guess I could dig through my own sources, but I really don't want to :-) If you're comfortable knowing that I'm watching it, yes, I'll move the tag to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Allright, thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To Sandy: One, I'm not the TSFC, I _volunteer_ for them. Two, you erased my work within 100 seconds of me posting it before I could even establish rationale, etc. (And that goes for you too, After Midnight -- don't either of you have lives? With you, Sandy, I suspect a disorder is informing your decisions. And the TSFC/TSA rivalry myth is sick - stop acting like such a war-drumming American) Why don't next time you take a deep breath, wait a few minutes, and see what the editor finishes with. And not caring about wasting NPO money, After Midnight? What's wrong with you? Are you listening to yourself? The power trip thing is so, so ugly, again going for both of you. - Mt Valley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt Valley (talk • contribs) 05:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just saying that you are full of something. If you are a volunteer, you are not getting paid, so what donations are getting wasted? At any rate, there is no need for you to come by here and hurl personal attacks. Either edit properly or don't come wasting *my* time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, so much for the idea of being nice to a new editor, and removing a warranted COI tag out of consideration. I missed the "wasting NPO" comment and can't find it anywhere. Other than that, this is one baseless personal attack and a fine return for the help I gave on that article. Ta, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ah, now I see that conversation above this one. I left a response on Mt Valley's talk page. Thanks for the help, After Midnight. I'll be keeping an eye on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight:"If you are a volunteer, you are not getting paid, so what donations are getting wasted?" You might consider the time, space and energy required of and given to a volunteer. I don't exist in a vacuum: I use resources, require assistance from the staff, and it's time that could have spent on other projects. That's why. And again, I was in the middle of editing when you interfered. It isn't baseless. And if you don't recognize the language and tone of self-appointed authority, god help you. User:Mt Valley —Preceding comment was added at 21:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mt Valley, just as you volunteer for the TSFC, we volunteer for Wikipedia. Consider the time you are taking as well, and the kindness that has been shown you in spite of the personal attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GreyGardens.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GreyGardens.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the page in question already contains the fair use rationale that CD covers are permitted in articles where the CD recordings are discussed. So I cannot imagine what further explanation you want. If you wish to dismiss the current fair use rationale, go ahead and delete the image. - Nunh-huh 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The boilerplate template that you have on the image states that you still need to add a rationale. It suggests (as do I) that you check out Wikipedia:Use rationale examples#CD album cover art in the article about that album --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so if I move that explanation to the talk page (as anyone, including you, could do), the image stays, and if I don't, you'll delete it? Then delete it. - Nunh-huh 16:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lum40.jpg

Image:Lum40.jpg does not meet the criteria for CSD. Showers (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It did when I tagged it. Now that it has a rationale it does not. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WiMAX Logo...

Thought that was the official logo, why did you delete that? Why was it a candidate for speedy deletion in the first place? -Spansign (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wimax logo.gif was deleted because it did not have a non-free usage rationale such as described at {{Non-free use rationale}}. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather optional question

Just a presumption, but I'm guessing that if I hadn't closed the discussion, I presume that you would probably have.

This is totally optional, but I'm kinda curious. (And in asking, I'm intending no emnity of any kind towards anyone, including those who commented in any of the discussions, and including the closer of the DRV.)

How would you have closed the discussion? (And please feel free to not spare my feelings.)

I've been dying to ask this of you since receiving the first comment about the closure : ) - jc37 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Let me put that in context. I think that the 2 that you closed that day were part of a particularly tough set of closes, the 3rd being the Rouge Admins, which I did close. All three of these had, I thought, a high chance to go to DRV. As a result, when I closed the Rouge category, I tried to be as clear as possible regarding why I was keeping, and I really did mean what I said in that close about how I would have deleted if the userbox situation had been different. So, moving past the one I did, I was really expecting to have to make some hard decisions the next day as I had peeked ahead, but hadn't read enough to even start to make up my mind on them yet at that time. (side note - I try very hard to not read the discussions until I am ready to close them - that way I find that I am less inclined to tipping myself in a direction just because the debate starts in that direction). Of course I woke up and found that you had closed it and I did feel a bit like I dodged a bullet, especially since someone had already started telling me on my talk page that they were planning to DRV Rouge (although they never did - I don't know if I convinced them or if they just decided to let it go). At any rate, I never got a change to really formulate how I would have closed trout. I can tell you that I did endorse your deletion on the DRV, but as you know, some people will endorse a decision even if they do not necessarily agree with it. I think that I would have started writing the decision as a delete and seen if I felt it was strong enough to stick. If it wasn't strong enough, I would have been forced to no consensus it. I'm not sure that I could have written a close strong enough to overcome a DRV, but I would have tried. By the way, I really do believe that this category would have remained deleted (an maybe not even gone to DRV) it it was not an admin category. I'm really concerned here that this was kept because of all the admins who weighed in to keep/overturn and that we have a bit of "do what I say, not what I do" or "we get to keep this because we are admins (i.e. special)" going on.

So... I know that was long winded, and probably more than you asked for, but yes, in summary, I would have closed it delete (though perhaps with no different an end result).

Keep your head high. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you. And you may not be aware, but I don't think you can get to be "too long-winded" when discussing with me : ) - I appreciate your thoughts. I've been discussing the close with the DRV closer, as well. One thing that's come of it is that apparently we need a set of "guidelines". So I may be asking for your help after the holidays : ) - jc37 18:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, Horologium wasn't upset with the rouge admin discussion closer (you), he was upset with the double standard, and understood what a position the discussion may put you in. See H's talk page for some further discussion. - jc37 04:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that discussion. I didn't think that Horologium was upset with me, I believe that he can separate me from my decision, but I could tell that he did disagree. That's fine, I have no problem with rational disagreements; I just knew that all 3 of those were "trouble". --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way.... you may note that I was a bit more verbose in my closing rationales for the discussions of December 20; a bit of a reaction to recent events. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Also, check out Black Falcon's talk page as well for more of the Horologium discussion. (Might as well be thorough : ) - jc37 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oy --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:No Screenshot.svg

Are you sure you meant to remove this image? . -- Ned Scott 16:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly did not intend that to happen. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I apologize for any inconvenience that I may have caused and am reverting myself to clean it up. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I figured it was a simple mistake. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_against_censorship

I'm not sure I agree with your close on that. I read it as "keep" or at best as "keep no consensus", and that your argument that this is project related (only) as rebutted by enough folk that consensus on that point is not at all clear. Care to justify your close in more detail? I think doing so on the close itself might be helpful. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the rename part of my decision is fairly untouchable, I believe, so you must be objecting to the delete part. I don't work on sheer numbers, but there is no way that those numbers (3 support proposal, 3 keep, 1 delete) equal a simple keep decision, especially since one of the keeps is objecting to potential name awkwardness. So on the question of the delete part of the close, this essentially leaves us at 4 vs. 2 with 1 on the sidelines. Between the counts and also the argument strength, as per the advertising close, you have my decision. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I argued against the rename so no, I object to the whole thing. This was at best a no consensus keep, if not a straight keep on the strength of the arguments. You're giving the appearance of not actually justifying your decision further, just asserting your authority. I'm not sure that's a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikimedia_and_advertising

If, as you say, "The strength of argument provided by Timeshifter is most persuasive in this debate which has a near equal number of participants on both sides" then wouldn't that be a keep no consensus? When I evaluate this one, I see the persuasive arguments mostly on the other side, so I don't really think a call of consensus here is justified. Can you please justify your close more persuasively? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it says "The result of the debate was ...." not "The consensus is....". I feel that I put my rationale on this one very clearly and that I have, as evidenced at other recent DRVs of my closes, been supported in using weight of arguments to make these types of decisions. I'll stand by my statement as written at this time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that closing based on your views instead of consensus is a good approach. If you're relying on DRV results as justification instead of addressing the points I raised, then perhaps these all need to go to DRV. Perhaps a wider pool of people will choose to participate in UCFD going forward, I am dismayed at the apparent insularity I see. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Revolution magazine image

Hi After Midnight, may I know on what grounds did you delete the image of Revolution magazine? If it's a copyright issue, the image was posted with the explicit permission of the copyright owner. Is there any way for us to clarify this, and for the image to be returned to the entry?

Thanks, Catherine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.138.158 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The image Image:Revolution USA5 cover.jpg was deleted on December 18 after having been tagged for one week for lack of a {{Non-free use rationale}} per WP:CSD#I6. If you can remediate this, the image can be restored. One question, does the owner allow the image to be used by anyone for any purpose, or only for it to be posted on Wikipedia? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale has been added. Please let me know if it is alright. Thanks so much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.138.158 (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Culpable -1960 film

PLease restore File:Culpable'1960 -I'm about to add the correct licensing and start the article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 22:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an incredible coincidence that as I was going to create it -the image was deleted in that minute!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Liceinsing is all ready and everyting!!

Hang on. I'll have it restored in just a minute, trying to get the name right so I can find it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Culpable'1960.jpg restored. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers -remarkable the timing!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Murphy's Law, methinks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing

Hi. Just pinging you about this one. It's been a while since you added the template, so per the template I'm just checking in. Hiding T 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I figured that was the reason for the delay, I just wanted to double check. Thanks. Hiding T 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • No problem. For all the grief that people give IRC, it is great for getting the timing of things right like we did on that one. I was able to make the changes at the same time as the bot operator and they were able to make sure that everything worked correctly before we moved on. Thanks for your patience. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)